The Complainant is Bolognafiere S.P.A, Italy, represented by Dr. Modiano & Associati S.p.A., Italy.
The Respondent is NSL Turizm Org. Hizm. Gıda Bilg. San.Tic. Ltd. Şti., Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2020. On October 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 3, 2020. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of Europe’s leading exhibition centers that hosts several trade fairs and other events every year. The Complainant owns a number of registrations of the trademark COSMOPROF inter alia international registration No. 981689 registered on July 24, 2008 for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41. The registration inter alia designates Turkey. The Complainant also owns several domain names that contains the trademark COSMOPROF such as The disputed domain name was registered on April 30, 2020 and resolves to an active website in Turkish that purports to contain information on and offer travel packages to the COSMOPROF fair. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants trademark COSMOPROF. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name nor is the Respondent making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the disputed domain name is used for a website that features the COSMOPROF trademark as well as the official logo of the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has clearly been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when the disputed domain name was registered, and the disputed domain name is used in a manner that disrupts the business of the Complainant, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and thereby misleading the Internet users that are looking for the Complainant to visit the Respondent’s website instead. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. Given the circumstances of this case, and in particular the way that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding, and indeed there is no other evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Moreover, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation, see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides an example of circumstances, which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case and in particular the way that the disputed domain name is used, it is evident to the Panel that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant and of the Complainant’s mark COSMOPROF when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered with the intention to use it for a website that could attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Also, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name actively for a website that clearly purports to be a website that is authorized by or otherwise endorsed by the Complainant. By using the Complainant’s logo and by reproducing other types of official material on the website, such as photos, the website is undoubtedly likely to give Internet users the impression that the Respondent has been authorised to sell tour packages or to otherwise organising visits to the COSMOPROF fair in Bologna, which according to the Complainant is not the case. It is thus clear to the Panel that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: November 30, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy